The Contentious-Administrative Chamber of the Superior Court of Justice of Madrid (TSJM), seventh section, has ordered the payment of costs up to a maximum of 1,000 eurosplus VAT if applicable, to the Administration due to the State Attorney General’s Office (FGE) in the so-called ‘Stamp case’.

According to the order of March 7, this conviction is due to the fact that the FGE first refused to hand over the prosecutor Ignacio Stampa the files that he requested to exercise his defense, forcing him “to go to court to satisfy his claims, with subsequent recognition of them, once the procedure was advanced by means of an act to the contrary & rdquor ;.

In Roman paladino: the FGE, as soon as the lawsuit began, requested through the State Attorney dismiss the claim and pay the costs to Stampa. And then he backed down.

Both charging the Administration with the costs and the reason why the magistrates have given this setback – in which the pagans, through the budget of the Ministry of Justice are the citizens – is something that is available to everyone.

The prosecution game

But what is already more difficult to grasp is the resolution adopted and the sleight of hand accomplished.

The FGE backed down to obtain what the magistrates call a “out-of-court satisfaction & rdquor;that is, a situation in which the defendant unilaterally grants what is being demanded of it.

This means that the object of the lawsuit no longer exists, it has disappeared due to out-of-court satisfaction. Dead the dog, we have finished with the rabies.

Well. Sometimes the arcanum of contentious-administrative jurisdiction can justify insecurity in understanding.

However, the car of the seventh section presents a problem, which, without a doubt, should be the core of extra-procedural satisfaction.

And it is to give you what you have demanded.

The “main claim”

The magistrates point out that the “main claim was that within the ten days following the notification of the sentence, give testimony to this party of all the acts, communications and indications dictated by the Excma. State Attorney General in relation to investigation proceedings No 32/2020, followed in the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid against d Ignacio Stampa Sourceand that are found in the follow-up file of the Technical Secretariat 298/20 and the accounting report of the Superior Prosecutor of Madrid (FSM) 8/20 (or 8/21, due to the apparent error in its numbering) & rdquor ;.

Trending on Canadian News  Two taken to hospital in two-vehicle crash, Edmonton police investigate

That is to say: Stampa requested two files, the one from the Technical Secretariat of the State Attorney General’s Office 298/20 and the one from the Higher Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid 8/20 (or 8/21).

Depending on the car, Alvaro GarciaChief Prosecutor of the Technical Secretariat, issued an agreement dated December 9, 2021 to deliver to Stampa the files of the Technical Secretariat 298/2020 and the Technical Secretariat 697/20 “taking into account the singularities of the case and the events subsequent to the prior refusal & rdquor ;.

The car describes Stampa’s demands several times.

“Well, having examined, on the one hand, the petitum of the claim made by the appellant, it is found that the request made refers to two procedures: a follow-up file registered with the number ST 298/20 and an accounting procedure identified as FSM 8/20 (or 8/21)…”.

The jump into the void

And in that the car takes a leap into the void.

“This being the case, it is clear that the purpose of the lawsuit is to obtain testimony of the aforementioned orders, instructions or indications of the State Attorney General in relation to the processing by the Superior Prosecutor’s Office of Madrid of the investigative proceedings 32/2020 followed against the appellant, and that such orders, instructions and indications are contained in the governmental file 298/2020, as well as in the file ST 697/20 where the extension decree that arises is configured. also of the investigation proceedings 32/20 & rdquor ;.

And what does the car say about the 8/20 (or 8/21) that Stampa asked for?

Trending on Canadian News  Organizers say Rolling Thunder rally ends Sunday, police say no long-term occupation

The file FSM 8/20 (or 8/21) has therefore disappeared in the resolution, which, according to the response of the then superior prosecutor of Madrid, Jesus Knight Klink, a Stampa contains the orders they received from the State Attorney General’s Office, either from the Attorney General itself or from the Chief Prosecutor of the Technical Secretariat. According to the magistrates, this file should be incorporated into those of the Technical Secretariat.

a major disappearance

How important is this disappearance?

Here would be the evidence of the action from top to bottom, from the FGE to the TSJM Prosecutor’s Office, to which they had to respond in the investigation proceedings during the eight months that lasted, between July 2020 and February 2021.

The court has come to say: you already have the much publicized suggestions of Alvaro Garcia to the TSJM investigator to postpone the investigative proceedings on leaks in the ‘Tándem-Villarejo case’. That’s it.

But it is not all that it is. Although the magistrates say that it is everything.

Related news

The TSJM has shaken off the dead. It can be appealed in replacement, with zero travel, and there would be another possibility: request the review of the execution of the decree of the FGE that ordered the delivery of the incomplete files, -as the order itself suggests when stating that the procedure is without purpose “without prejudice to what may arise at the venue of execution of a final administrative act & rdquor ;.

“Stampa asked for all the documentation and the Chamber has not made sure that it is all there. They have considered that it is not their problem to find out and that it must be resolved in any case via execution of the administrative act. So, what has this resource been used for?” points out a consulted legal source.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.